Marco Antonio Barrera: #3 P4P in the World..(ranked ahead of Mayweather), #1 Featherweight in the World. A Legend in his prime coming off wins over Hamed, Morales, Sanchez, and Tapia. End of Discussion.

This sums it up. Floyd's undefeated and always fights top competition. Always.

Pac's "resume" is full of fighters with marquee names who are 1) over-the-hill, 2) coming off consecutive losses/poor performances, 3) fights take place at disadvantageous weights/catchweights. Pac's opponents to whom this applies is: DLH / Hatton / Cotto / Mosley / Margarito. Basically the very reason Pac became a marquee name himself was wins over those guys. They were very, very mediocre wins considering the circumstances.

Floyd on the other hand fights them when 1) they're undefeated, 2) coming off big victories, 3) at their desired weight/on their terms. Such fights include: DLH / Hatton / Mosley / Ortiz (coming off best win) / Cotto.

Marco Antonio Barrera: #3 P4P in the World..(ranked ahead of Mayweather), #1 Featherweight in the World. A Legend in his prime coming off wins over Hamed, Morales, Sanchez, and Tapia. End of Discussion.

You've got quite a long ways to go to turn that turd sandwich resume into a great list.

You've got quite a long ways to go to turn that turd sandwich resume into a great list.

I can't alter your personal perception on a subject you feel so strongly about nor do I wish to waste my time with someone only interested in little "wind ups" responses void of reasoning. I have however successfully argued that those three are not bums, scrubs, or whatever label you want to disrespect them with.

Here we go again. Everybody calling each other "*****" or a "Pac****". And comparing their resumes and blablablabla...The most tired worn out debate and name calling in the history of the world. Who cares anymore, they are not going to fight.

Majority of fans believe Marquez won at least two, and that's before the KO. Also, Mayweather beat Marquez decisively. The number of times he's faced them is irrelevant. That just means he couldn't seal the deal or lost.

The ones in bold are shared opponents.

Then we have Clottey and Margarito. Mayweather would make mince-meat out of either one. No one puts Clottey in the ranks of the greats, so I don't know why he's considered such a great win for Pacquaio -- oh yeah, he's Pacquaio, that's why.

So that leaves Barrera and Morales.

Clottey is a dangerous fight for anybody as is Margo, especially when they are bigger than you, Margo-Pac would be like Floyd-Abraham...but "what if I lose" mentality stops fights like this. There was a huge cry for a Margo/Cotto match up in 07/08 yet Floyd decided to go on vacation instead , he has everything required to be a top ten fighter all time but the mentality, how frustrating to neutral fans is it to see a guy with he's ability and skill opt for the easy route time and time again? He's nigh on become a joke.

I can't alter your personal perception on a subject you feel so strongly about nor do I wish to waste my time with someone only interested in little "wind ups" responses void of reasoning. I have however successfully argued that those three are not bums, scrubs, or whatever label you want to disrespect them with.

I didn't call Barrera a scrub, but I did neglect to list him. Rather than nit-pick, you might as well concede that Pacquiao fought low level opponents for a lot longer than Mayweather did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChampionsForever

[/color]Clottey is a dangerous fight for anybody as is Margo, especially when they are bigger than you, Margo-Pac would be like Floyd-Abraham...but "what if I lose" mentality stops fights like this. There was a huge cry for a Margo/Cotto match up in 07/08 yet Floyd decided to go on vacation instead , he has everything required to be a top ten fighter all time but the mentality, how frustrating to neutral fans is it to see a guy with he's ability and skill opt for the easy route time and time again? He's nigh on become a joke. [/color]

I didn't call Barrera a scrub, but I did neglect to list him. Rather than nit-pick, you might as well concede that Pacquiao fought low level opponents for a lot longer than Mayweather did.

-Missing Barrera is hardly a nitpick, that's a pretty HUGE name to neglect and calls into question your credability. Even moreso than trashing Morales as "low profile". We are suppose to take you seriously and waste our time arguing with you when you began your thread this way?

-By 1998 both men had won titles and earned the #1 ranking in their respective weight classes. But no question, Mayweather was the more high profile fighter until 2004. But I don't think many argue Pacquiao as the superior resume based on this isolated pocket of time without context.

-Mayweather was a Golden Gloves Champion, a child prodigy American Olympian who didn't turn Pro until he was 20 years of age and fought at much more lucrative weights. Pacquiao was a poor Pinoy who turned pro as a teenager to earn a living after a short largely unknown amatuer career in largely ignored lower weight classes. Not to knock Pacman though, despite his more humble beginings he did capture Sasakul's lineal title just a few days shy of 20th birthday. If that is "****" to you, many fighters would be so lucky to be called "****."

-Missing Barrera is hardly a nitpick, that's a pretty HUGE name to neglect and calls into question your credability. Even moreso than trashing Morales as "low profile". We are suppose to take you seriously and waste our time arguing with you when you began your thread this way?

-Mayweather was a Golden Gloves Champion, a child prodigy American Olympian who didn't turn Pro until he was 20 years of age and fought at much more lucrative weights. Pacquiao was a poor Pinoy who turned pro as a teenager to earn a living after a short largely unknown amatuer career in largely ignored lower weight classes. Not to knock Pacman though, despite his more humble beginings he did capture Sasakul's lineal title just a few days shy of 20th birthday. If that is "****" to you, many fighters would be so lucky to be called "****."

Irrelevant excuses.

You've established the fact that his padded and unimpressive wins (over half his record) is due to his impoverished circumstance. Great job.

That is a valid excuse, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't change facts. Much of his record is padded and unimpressed.....because (insert your excuse here).